Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

under customary law. A duty on states arises from this right, being the obligation to takemeasures for the protection of the lives of civilians against attacks by other privatepersons. This obligation certainly holds in the event of serious threat such as large-scaleviolence (see, A. Simon, op. cit., page 171 et seq.). Without this obligation actively totake measures the right to life would not be sufficiently guaranteed. This duty holds alsofor UN troops in a Safe Area, at least to the extent that the troops have assumedgovernmental tasks (see, R. Hofmann, op. cit., page 16 and A. Simon, op. cit., pages 175and 176). In Srebrenica Dutchbat had, according to UN resolution 836, the task, interalia, of preventing attacks against the Safe Area. According to the Secretary-General ofthe UN Dutchbat’s principal task was the protection of the civilian population (see,Report of the Security Council established pursuant to resolution 844, 1993, of 9 May1994, (S/1994/555), page 5 number 16). The UN was consequently obliged as aminimum to protect the population against large-scale attacks on life and health (see, A.Simon, op. cit., page 176).414. The duty of protection owed by a UN force is restricted to the means that are available toit and to the measures that may reasonably be expected of it (see, A. Simon, op. cit.,page 177). There is thus a serious charge against the State of the Netherlands inherent inthe armament chosen for Dutchbat. The UN was obliged to prevent the capture of theSafe Area and the resulting mass murder with assistance of the means at its disposal.Plaintiff and the Foundation conclude that Dutchbat and the State of the Netherlandswere not prepared, however, to protect the Safe Area against Serb attacks. Plaintiff andthe Foundation hold it against Dutchbat that the observed atrocities were not reported.Dutchbat fulfilled the obligations so inadequately that the UN and the State of theNetherlands are liable. Plaintiff and the Foundation hold the UN liable for itsunresponsive attitude to the provision of air support, the calling-off of air support, theabsence of a defence plan and an evacuation plan, poor information management and afaulty assessment of the situation. All this is also held against the State of theNetherlands (see, A. Simon, op. cit., page 178 through 181). These various matters ledto the right to life of the murdered family of Plaintiff and the murdered family of thepersons whose interests are promoted by Foundation being breached.© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com173